November 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: Get your own free links site for free
by Free web tools 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

Hi, You are invited to get your own free links page for free at: http://jp.internations.net/freebies8/fl1.html or http://www.mb10free.com/freebies911/fl1.html or http://63.82.144.35/totalfree/fl1.html Thank You! To be removed from our list just click the link below then click send. mailto:fl1remove@unbounded.com?Subject=remove ########################################################### Please report any internet abuse to: compliancecontrol(a)unbounded.com

1 0

CDR: FREE SHIPPING of The African American Bible
by AfricanAmericanBibles.com 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

This is the Bible every African American family should have. Now you can have one for your family to cherish for many years to come. For a limited time Planet Jubilee Inc. is offering free shipping for The African American Jubilee Edition Bible. See and learn God's word through the unique perspective of the African American experience. This unique Bible includes the Old and New Testaments as well as 284 richly illustrated pages of the history of African Americans, the history of the Black Church in America as well as the presence of Africans in the Bible. This remarkable Bible includes: Many full color reproductions of works by renowned African American artists. Contributions by famous African American historians and theologians. Pages in the front of the book to record your own family history. Of course, every Bible purchased comes with a 100% money back guarantee. Please click here purchase or to learn more about this special Bible. Your purchase is safe and secure. http://www.AfricanAmericanBibles.com ****************************************************************** You have received this email because you opted to receive Afro-Centric offers on-line. If you believe you received this message in error or do not wish to receive any more mailings from Planet Jubilee please reply to this message and type "REMOVE" in the subject area and your name will be deleted from all our future mailings. ******************************************************************

1 0

CDR: RE: CNN.com - U.S. Supreme Court strikes down drug roadblocks - November 28, 2000
by Trei, Peter 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

> Jim Choate wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, sunder wrote: >[Please don't post 64k of html when a URL would do] > > This is such a fucking waste of space and time. Why are you so hard > headed? > > I never learned to say 'baaah' and I feel no obligation to satisfy your > desires or wants. I certainly feel no desire to live my life according to > your ethics. If it really bothers you see a shrink. > > Just another wannbe tyrant. > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > No, just a reasonable man asking you not to piss where we drink. Jim, you're being a jerk. When I post long texts, I post only the text, even if I have to pull the page source into emacs to do so. If appropriate, I post the URL instead. This is common courtesy. As you say, it's an open list. No one can actually stop you from being a jerk except yourself. However, as your jerk index increases, people gradually pay less and less attention to you. It hurts your reputation, which is the closest thing to gold you possess in an online form such as this. There's a difference between (1) being a sheep, and (2) acting with consideration; a difference which appears to be too subtle for you. Peter Trei Disclaimer: It's just my opinion, OK?

1 0

CDR: Industry Standard: Legislating Cookies
by Steve Schear 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

Legislating Cookies By John Roemer November 28, 2000 In the absence of legislation written specifically to regulate Net privacy, should a 14-year-old wiretapping law be applied to Internet privacy issues? Two federal class actions filed last week raise this question, claiming that online ad companies violate federal laws by tracking consumers' browsing habits without their permission. Filed in Denver against Excite@Home subsidiary MatchLogic and in Redmond, Wash., against the online advertiser Avenue A, the suits complain that the two companies planted cookies on consumers' hard drives to track their Web habits for commercial purposes, thereby violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, passed by Congress to deter wiretapping, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. As concerns about Internet privacy grow, legal experts believe that the outcome of these two suits could shape the development of future Net privacy practices. If the judges decide that existing wiretapping laws forbid the practice of tracking consumer information via cookies, Web advertisers will face legal liability for cookie use unless they are scrupulous about notifying consumers of the practice. Conversely, if the courts decide that the existing wiretapping laws don't forbid the use of cookies without adequate notification, it could be open season for advertisers to harvest and sell information about site visitors, at least until Congress drafts new legislation to govern consumers' privacy rights in cyberspace. Although both companies declined to comment on the suits, attorneys at the powerhouse class-action firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach who joined both suits are trying to convince the judges that the existing law regulating wiretapping can also be applied to the Web. They argue that the online advertisers accessed consumers' information without their knowledge, using a method similar to one a wiretapper would use to intercept a phone conversation. But Denver attorney Philip Gordon, an expert in wiretapping statutes and a fellow of the nonprofit Privacy Foundation, points out that Congress intended ECPA to protect the content of communications, such as the words spoken in a phone conversation, not transactional data, such as the number dialed and the length and cost of the call. In Web usage, that transactional information is of value to advertisers. Gordon noted that the cases might turn on whether the defendants can show that users reviewed and understood the privacy policies that were posted on the sites. Another hurdle for the plantiffs is whether all of Net users' experiences are sufficiently similar for the cases to qualify as a class action. The outcome, whichever direction it takes, is likely to clarify an area of Internet law that remains murky, at least for the time being. "Internet law is simply not developed in this area," Gordon says. "Ideally, the courts should grapple with these issues and decide if federal statutes can be applied to the novel technologies presented." Online Ad Companies Hit With Privacy Suits http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3821026.html Review: Online Toy Stores Fall Short on Privacy Protection (InfoWorld) http://tm0.com/thestandard/sbct.cgi?s=64852336&i=281243&d=672624 Privacy Foundation http://www.privacyfoundation.org

1 0

CDR: Get your own free links site for free
by Free web tools 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

Hi, You are invited to get your own free links page for free at: http://jp.internations.net/freebies8/fl1.html or http://www.mb10free.com/freebies911/fl1.html or http://63.82.144.35/totalfree/fl1.html Thank You! To be removed from our list just click the link below then click send. mailto:fl1remove@unbounded.com?Subject=remove ########################################################### Please report any internet abuse to: compliancecontrol(a)unbounded.com

1 0

CDR: [e-gold-list] ecash news
by R. A. Hettinga 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

CDR: RE: Arthur Anderson black-bagged, NIPC now spooking
by Ernest Hua 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

> > (BTW, there is little discussion of the commercial espionage aspects > > of Carnivore. I know that Intel must be thrilled at the prospect that > > a Carnivore box attached to some node that their traffic flows > > through will suck up all of _Intel's_ traffic. With luck, it will > > convince companies like Intel and Microsoft to much more widely > > deploy crypto for communications which might be intercepted by > > Carnivores.) > > Carnivore is a toy compared to other commercial tools already out there. > Look at the products from MuTek for example, their 'black box' technology > was done for the CIA. Probably true. Just take a look at the publically advertised info from AST and other NSA supplies, and Carnivore really is just a toy. The claim that this is just a way to test the legal waters (which NSA is generally protected from) has a lot of merit. If this is really the best the FBI can do, I want my tax dollars back. Ern

1 0

CDR: Re: Authenticate the "adult field", go to jail...
by obvious＠beta.freedom.net 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

RAH writes: > I don't think you understand how bearer credentials would work. > > With blinded bearer credentials, prosecutors wouldn't have much of a leg to > stand on, since the authenticator is only validating the *existence*, or > not, of a blinded age credential. With bearer credentials, authenticated in > exchange, of course, for cash :-), the authenticator of those credentials > has no idea *who* is asking for that proof of age. You're saying that the customer comes to the porn merchant with a blinded credential. The merchant goes to the authenticator with the credential, and pays for it to be authenticated. The blinding is there to protect the customer, as the credential is unlinkable to his credit card which he used to prove his age. > There's no direct sales contact with any particular content vendor. > Validation of age would probably be done in somekind of graded auction > market, anyway. Actually there is direct sales contact with the content vendor. The notion that he is going to come to the authenticator and pay CASH for EVERY customer contact is absurd. It's completely uneconomical until we have a worldwide ecash infrastructure. If that's what you had in mind, shut up for ten years and speak up when you have something relevant to say. What will really happen is that the porn merchant will have an account with the authenticator, and he'll pay every month or so based on how many authentications have been done. That's how business works. This means that there IS sales contact, and the authenticator DOES KNOW who his merchants are. It is exactly the same business relationship as exists today, except that the customers have the benefit of blinding to protect their identities. > >> Thomas Reedy, 37, and his wife, Janice Reedy, 32, of Fort Worth, are > >> accused in an 87-count indictment of providing access to several child-porn > >> Internet sites by verifying subscribers' credit cards and assigning them > >> passwords. > >> > >> The Reedys maintain that they did not know that some of the pornographic > >> sites they provided access to contained illegal child pornography. > > > > In fact if anything this kind of prosecution is an argument *against* > > getting into the ecash/ecredential business, especially if it is focused > > on porn as some have proposed. All you need is for someone to use it > > to sell or authorize access to kiddie porn, and you're going to jail. > > It would be interesting to see this tested in court. There is sizeable > legal precedent for the issuers of bearer cash, say a nation-state, not > being held liable for purchases using that cash. The same could be said for > issuers of bearer credentials. Somehow I doubt that the Reedys are going to get away with saying that governments aren't held liable for misdeeds commited with their currency, so they shouldn't be blamed when someone sells bad stuff using the Reedy's own services. Look at what they're accused of! Providing access to kiddie porn by verifying credit cards and assigning passwords. That's exactly what your bearer cert business will do except instead of passwords they'll issue blinded tokens. This is especially true when the de facto market for such a business is only the worst porn, the porn that the customers really don't want anyone to be able to find out they were involved with. This kind of information comes out in court. You can't hide it. Obvious. ________________________________________________________________________ Total Internet Privacy -- get your Freedom Nym at http://www.freedom.net

2 1

CDR: Vinge
by Harmon Seaver 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

5 11

CDR: re: Imagine
by Steve Schear 29 Nov '00

29 Nov '00

1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation's secret police (CIA). Correction. He was declared the winner by the fact that he has received 271 of the needed 270 electoral votes. Let's be accurate Please! 2. Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover (Electoral College) from the nation's pre-democracy past. 1. This country is a republic, not a democracy. 2. The electoral college was designed to protect states rights, it is not a colonial holdover. It is interesting that leading up to the election, democrats were afraid that Prince Al (as the democrats would like to view him) was going to win on the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. At that time the republicans were silent but the dem's were spinning and spinning that the electoral college is the "law of the land" and we must abide by the law. Funny when things do go as expected for the dem's how they can reverse their spin so quickly. Bottom line. IT IS THE LAW!!! 3. Imagine that the self-declared winner's 'victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother! Again, let's work with facts - About 1% of the ballots that the machines registered as "no president vote" in Dade county. Prince Al claims that these have never been counter. Reality check: In the past elections in 92 and 96, Dade county showed about 1% of the ballots registered as "no vote for president". In the exit polls for Dade county there were an estimated count of 1% that claimed to not have voted for president. Prince Al would have us believe that if the ballot is punched for democrats but only a scratch on the card (note a scratch that only a democrat canvassing board member can see) means a vote for Prince Al. However, the truth is the only ballots that have not been counted in Florida, are the thousands of Military absentee ballots that the democrat "mob" has managed to get rejected PRIOR to any count. 4. Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate. A Ballot designed by the losing candidates party members, approved by the losing candidates party and campaign staff, and is the same ballot layout used in that county in 1996 without complaint, and is the same ballot that when given to 4 grade children 98% were able to figure it out. Finally, if a ballot is a secret vote, and that once cast cannot be traced back to the individual voter, how the ^#$% can the dem's claim that these people knew they voted for the wrong person? If they knew they made a mistake, the "CONFUSING BALLOT" had these strange words on it along with signs in the polling place, that the voter could request a new ballot. 5. Imagine that members of that nation's most despised caste, fearing for their lives/livelihoods, turned out in record numbers to vote in near-universal opposition to the self-declared winner's candidacy. This item makes no sense at all except it does echo the words of who has to be the writers greatest hero Vladimir Iljitsh Uljanov (Lenin). 6. Imagine that state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner's brother intercepted hundreds of members of that most-despised caste on their way to the polls. see answer to item 5 above. i.e. BULL@@$#$ 7. Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 327 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error. and even after a recount, and hand recount with democrat operatives managing the hand recount still had the legally declared winner as the winner. 8. Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and re-counting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district. You know it is interesting that people who claim some level of intelligence can not see the vote engineering that was attempted by democrat operatives in some counties in an attempt to STEAL the election from the rightful winner. We have had a count, a recount, a re recount, and the same guy won each time. Al lost. GET OVER IT!!!!! 9. Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions. This statement is beneath contempt. 10. Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint like-minded human rights violators to lifetime positions on the high court of that nation. See answer to 9 Above. The winner of this election has a PROVEN track record of bridging the gulf between the two parties better than any other Governor. This claim was made by Democrat officials of the state where the President Elect is Governor. The current President and Vice President of the country have a record as causing the most partisan wrangling, bickering, and politics of personal destruction in the history of this nation. I guess that is a record to be proud of. Not to mention - National secrets lost to communist nations. Depletion of the national defense armaments. Gutting of the military. (What a great bunch of people to follow) Did I mention that the former Secretary of Labor for the current administration has told Prince Al "it's over, you lost, concede." None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will-to-power. Look back in history, and in this current election, the one continuing the fight when everything shows that you have lost is the selfish one with the will-to-power. Senator Ashcroft had more reasons to contest the election than Prince Al, but for the good of the nation did not. Richard Nixon had just as much right as Prince Al to contest, but for the good of the nation did not. Al Gore may be many things, but history will prove that Statesman is not one of them. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre- or anti-democracy peoples in some strange elsewhere." No this is proof, that all the spin, and all the attempts to thwart the system, the checks and balances put into the system by those, how did you put it, Old Colonials, is there because they knew the hubris of some ego maniacal sociopath like Prince Al and is misguided minions.

1 0